Deleting a fully specialised function left dangling pointers in
`FunctionAnalysisManager`, which causes an internal compiler error
when the function's storage was reused.
Fixes bug #58759.
Reviewed By: ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D138909
Change-Id: Ifed378c748af35e8fe7dcbdddb0f41b8777cbe87
When calculating the specialization bonus for a given function argument,
we recursively traverse the chain of (certain) users, accumulating the
instruction costs. Then we exponentially increase the bonus to account
for loop nests. This is problematic for two reasons: (a) the users might
not themselves be inside the loop nest, (b) if they are we are accounting
for it multiple times. Instead we should be adjusting the bonus before
traversing the user chain.
This reduces the instruction count for CTMark (newPM-O3) when Function
Specialization is enabled without actually reducing the amount of
specializations performed (geomean: -0.001% non-LTO, -0.406% LTO).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D136692
[fixed test to work with reverse iteration]
The `FunctionSpecialization` pass has support for specialising
functions, which are called with literal arguments. This functionality
is disabled by default and is enabled with the option
`-function-specialization-for-literal-constant` . There are a few
issues with the implementation, though:
* even with the default, the pass will still specialise based on
floating-point literals
* even when it's enabled, the pass will specialise only for the `i1`
type (or `i2` if all of the possible 4 values occur, or `i3` if all
of the possible 8 values occur, etc)
The reason for this is incorrect check of the lattice value of the
function formal parameter. The lattice value is `overdefined` when the
constant range of the possible arguments is the full set, and this is
the reason for the specialisation to trigger. However, if the set of
the possible arguments is not the full set, that must not prevent the
specialisation.
This patch changes the pass to NOT consider a formal parameter when
specialising a function if the lattice value for that parameter is:
* unknown or undef
* a constant
* a constant range with a single element
on the basis that specialisation is pointless for those cases.
Is also changes the criteria for picking up an actual argument to
specialise if the argument is:
* a LLVM IR constant
* has `constant` lattice value
has `constantrange` lattice value with a single element.
Reviewed By: ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D135893
Change-Id: Iea273423176082ec51339aa66a5fe9fea83557ee
Increase test coverage - check that functions are not specialised on
constant or unused arguments.
Reviewed By: SjoerdMeijer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D136184
When rewriting the call sites to call the new specialised functions, a
single call site can be matched by two different specialisations - a
"less specialised" version of the function and a "more specialised"
version of the function, e.g. for a function
void f(int x, int y)
the call like `f(1, 2)` could be matched by either
void f.1(int x /* int y == 2 */);
or
void f.2(/* int x == 1, int y == 2 */);
The `FunctionSpecialisation` pass tries to match specialisation in the
order of decreasing gain, so "more specialised" functions are
preferred to "less specialised" functions. This breaks, however, when
using the flag `-force-function-specialization`, in which case the
cost/benefit analysis is not performed and all the specialisations are
equally preferable.
This patch makes the pass calculate specialisation gain and order the
specialisations accordingly even when `-force-function-specialization`
is used, under the assumption that this flag has purely debugging
purpose and it is reasonable to ignore the extra computing effort it
incurs.
Reviewed By: ChuanqiXu, labrinea
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D136180
The `FunctionSpecialization` pass has support for specialising
functions, which are called with literal arguments. This functionality
is disabled by default and is enabled with the option
`-function-specialization-for-literal-constant` . There are a few
issues with the implementation, though:
* even with the default, the pass will still specialise based on
floating-point literals
* even when it's enabled, the pass will specialise only for the `i1`
type (or `i2` if all of the possible 4 values occur, or `i3` if all
of the possible 8 values occur, etc)
The reason for this is incorrect check of the lattice value of the
function formal parameter. The lattice value is `overdefined` when the
constant range of the possible arguments is the full set, and this is
the reason for the specialisation to trigger. However, if the set of
the possible arguments is not the full set, that must not prevent the
specialisation.
This patch changes the pass to NOT consider a formal parameter when
specialising a function if the lattice value for that parameter is:
* unknown or undef
* a constant
* a constant range with a single element
on the basis that specialisation is pointless for those cases.
Is also changes the criteria for picking up an actual argument to
specialise if the argument is:
* a LLVM IR constant
* has `constant` lattice value
has `constantrange` lattice value with a single element.
Reviewed By: ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D135893
When collecting the possible constant arguments to
specialise a function the compiler will abandon the search
on the first argument that is for some reason unsuitable as
a specialisation constant. Thus, depending on the traversal
order of the functions and call sites, the compiler can end
up with a different set of possible constants, hence with
different set of specialisations.
With this patch, the compiler will skip unsuitable
constants, but nevertheless will continue searching for
more.
Reviewed By: ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D135867
Small functions with size under a given threshold are not
considered for specialisaion on the presumption that they
are easy to inline. This does not apply to `noinline`
functions, though.
Reviewed By: ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D135862
As branch on undef is immediate undefined behavior, there is no need
to mark one of the edges as feasible. We can leave all the edges
non-feasible. In IPSCCP, we can replace the branch with an unreachable
terminator.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126962
This patch improves the fix in D110529 to prevent from crashing on value
with byval attribute that is not added in SCCP solver.
Authored-by: sinan.lin@linux.alibaba.com
Reviewed By: ChuanqiXu
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D126355
I found this bug when performing a two-stage build of clang with
Function Specialization enabled and tuned aggressively. The crash
appears only on release builds.
Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/55000.
Before accessing the contents of the ArgInfo iterator inside
SCCPInstVisitor::markArgInFuncSpecialization, we should be
checking that the iterator is valid.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D124114
This fixes a TODO in constantArgPropagation() to make it feature complete.
However, I do find myself in agreement with the review comments in
https://reviews.llvm.org/D106426. I don't think we should pursue
specializing such recursive functions as the code size increase becomes
linear to 'max-iters'. Compiling the modified test just with -O3 (no
function specialization) generates the same code.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D122755
The current implementation of Function Specialization does not allow
specializing more than one arguments per function call, which is a
limitation I am lifting with this patch.
My main challenge was to choose the most suitable ADT for storing the
specializations. We need an associative container for binding all the
actual arguments of a specialization to the function call. We also
need a consistent iteration order across executions. Lastly we want
to be able to sort the entries by Gain and reject the least profitable
ones.
MapVector fits the bill but not quite; erasing elements is expensive
and using stable_sort messes up the indices to the underlying vector.
I am therefore using the underlying vector directly after calculating
the Gain.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119880
A function is basically dead when:
* it has no uses
* it has only self-referencing uses (it's recursive)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D119878
This is a fix for a use-after-free found by the address sanitizer when
compiling GCC: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/52821
The Function Specialization pass may remove instructions, cached
inside the PredicateBase class, which are later being dereferenced
from the SCCPInstVisitor class. To prevent the dangling references
I am lazily deleting the dead instructions after the Solver has run.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118591
Rename option MaxConstantsThreshold to MaxClonesThreshold. Not only is this
more descriptive, this is also in preparation of introducing another threshold
to analyse more than just 1 constant argument as we currently do, and to better
distinguish these options/thresholds.
This is a follow up of D115458 and truncates the worklist of actual arguments
that can be specialised to 'MaxConstantsThreshold' candidates if
MaxConstantsThreshold was exceeded. Thus, this changes the behaviour of option
-func-specialization-max-constants. Before it didn't specialise at all when
this threshold was exceeded, but now it specialises up to MaxConstantsThreshold
candidates from the sorted worklist.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D115509
Even if there are no interesting functions, the SCCP solver would still run
before bailing. Now bail earlier, avoid running the solver for nothing.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111645
This is a follow up of D110529 that disallowed constexprs. That change
introduced a regression as this also disallowed constexprs that are function
pointers, which is actually one of the motivating use cases that we do want to
support.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D111567
Function specialization was crashing on poison values and constexpr values.
The problem is that these values are not added to the solver, so it crashes
when a lookup is performed for these values. This fixes that by not
specialising on these values. For poison that is obvious, but for constexpr
this is a change in behaviour. Thus, in one way this is a bit of a stopgap, but
specialising on constexpr values wasn't done very intentionally, and need some
more work and tests if we wanted to support this.
As a follow up, we need to look if the solver should exit more gracefully and
return a "don't know", or that it should really support these constexprs.
This should fix PR51600 (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=51600).
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D110529
This introduces an option to allow specialising on the address of global
values. This option is off by default because it is likely not that profitable
to do so and needs more investigation. Before, we were specialising on addresses
and thus this changes the default behaviour.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109775
The MinSize attribute can be attached to both the callee and the caller
in the callsite. Function specialisation was already skipped for function
declarations (callees) with MinSize. This also skips specialisations for
the callsite when it has MinSize set.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D109441
It would waste time to specialize a function which would inline finally.
This patch did two things:
- Don't specialize functions which are always-inline.
- Don't spescialize functions whose lines of code are less than threshold
(100 by default).
For spec2017int, this patch could reduce the number of specialized
functions by 33%. Then the compile time didn't increase for every
benchmark.
Reviewed By: SjoerdMeijer, xbolva00, snehasish
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107897
The may get changed before specialization by RunSCCPSolver. In other
words, the pass may change the function without specialization happens.
Add test and comment to reveal this.
And it may return No Changed if the function get changed by
RunSCCPSolver before the specialization. It looks like a potential bug.
Test Plan: check-all
Reviewed By: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107622
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D107622
This adds support for specialising recursive functions. For example:
int Global = 1;
void recursiveFunc(int *arg) {
if (*arg < 4) {
print(*arg);
recursiveFunc(*arg + 1);
}
}
void main() {
recursiveFunc(&Global);
}
After 3 iterations of function specialisation, followed by inlining of the
specialised versions of recursiveFunc, the main function looks like this:
void main() {
print(1);
print(2);
print(3);
}
To support this, the following has been added:
- Update the solver and state of the new specialised functions,
- An optimisation to propagate constant stack values after each iteration of
function specialisation, which is necessary for the next iteration to
recognise the constant values and trigger.
Specialising recursive functions is (at the moment) controlled by option
-func-specialization-max-iters and is opt-in for compile-time reasons. I.e.,
the default is -func-specialization-max-iters=1, but for the example above we
would need to use -func-specialization-max-iters=3. Future work is to see if we
can increase the default, or improve the cost-model/heuristics to control
compile-times.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D106426
Now the option is off by default. Since we are not sure if this option
would make the compile time increase aggressively. Although we tested it
on SPEC2017, we may need to test more to make it on by default.
Reviewed By: SjoerdMeijer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104365
Currently, LLParser will create a Function/GlobalVariable forward
reference based on the desired pointer type and then modify it when
it is declared. With opaque pointers, we generally do not know the
correct type to use until we see the declaration.
Solve this by creating the forward reference with a dummy type, and
then performing a RAUW with the correct Function/GlobalVariable when
it is declared. The approach is adopted from
b5b55963f6.
This results in a change to the use list order, which is why we see
test changes on some module passes that are not stable under use list
reordering.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104950
getSpecializationCost was returning INT_MAX for a case when specialisation
shouldn't happen, but this wasn't properly checked if specialisation was
forced.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104461
The original implementation calculating UserBonus uses operator ^, which means XOR in C++
language.
At the first glance of reviewing, I thought it should be power, my bad.
It doesn't make sense to use XOR here. So I believe it should be a
carelessness as I made.
Test Plan: check-all
Reviewed By: SjoerdMeijer
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D104282
This adds a function specialization pass to LLVM. Constant parameters
like function pointers and constant globals are propagated to the callee by
specializing the function.
This is a first version with a number of limitations:
- The pass is off by default, so needs to be enabled on the command line,
- It does not handle specialization of recursive functions,
- It does not yet handle constants and constant ranges,
- Only 1 argument per function is specialised,
- The cost-model could be further looked into, and perhaps related,
- We are not yet caching analysis results.
This is based on earlier work by Matthew Simpson (D36432) and Vinay Madhusudan.
More recently this was also discussed on the list, see:
https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2021-March/149380.html.
The motivation for this work is that function specialisation often comes up as
a reason for performance differences of generated code between LLVM and GCC,
which has this enabled by default from optimisation level -O3 and up. And while
this certainly helps a few cpu benchmark cases, this also triggers in real
world codes and is thus a generally useful transformation to have in LLVM.
Function specialisation has great potential to increase compile-times and
code-size. The summary from some investigations with this patch is:
- Compile-time increases for short compile jobs is high relatively, but the
increase in absolute numbers still low.
- For longer compile-jobs, the extra compile time is around 1%, and very much
in line with GCC.
- It is difficult to blame one thing for compile-time increases: it looks like
everywhere a little bit more time is spent processing more functions and
instructions.
- But the function specialisation pass itself is not very expensive; it doesn't
show up very high in the profile of the optimisation passes.
The goal of this work is to reach parity with GCC which means that eventually
we would like to get this enabled by default. But first we would like to address
some of the limitations before that.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93838
